"He inherits and is inherited from according to the extent of what has been emancipated of him" (1). This is because it is necessary for the ruling of each part to be established, just as if the other were like it, and by way of analogy of one of them to the other. Once this is established, the derivation [of rulings] is based on our view, because the application of the rulings on other than it is clear. The manner of his inheritance is that one who has a fixed share (fard) is given according to the extent of the freedom in him from his share. If he is a residuary (asabah), one looks at his wealth in relation to complete freedom, and he is given according to the extent of the freedom in him. If they are two residuaries and neither excludes the other, such as two sons each half of whom is free, there are two views regarding them. One is that freedom is completed in them by adding the freedom from one of them to that which is in the other. If one full [person] is completed from both of them, they both inherit the inheritance of a free son, because two halves of one thing are one whole thing. Then, what they have inherited is divided between them according to the extent of what is in each one of them; so if two-thirds of one is free and one-third of the other is free, what they inherited is divided between them in thirds. If the freedom in them is less than a complete free person, they inherit according to the extent of what is in them. If it exceeds one free person, and the parts in them are equal, what they inherit is divided between them equally; if they differ, each is given according to the extent of what is in him. Al-Khabri said: The majority said: This is the analogy of the view of 'Ali (may Allah be pleased with him). The other view is that freedom is not completed in them, because if it were completed, the effect of servitude would not be apparent, and they would be in their inheritance like two free people. If one of them excludes the other, it has been said that there are two views regarding them as well. The correct view is that freedom is not completed here, because a thing is not completed by what would negate it, nor is it combined with that which contradicts it. Some of them made him inherit by way of address (al-khitab), setting forth the circumstances (tanzil al-ahwal), and excluding some through others, on the model of setting forth the circumstances for hermaphrodites (khunatha) (2). Abu Yusuf spoke to this effect. The issues thereof are: A son, half of whom is free, has half of the wealth. If there is another son with him whose half is free, they share the wealth in one of the two views, and in the other, they have half of it, and the remainder goes to the residuaries, or to the public treasury if there are no residuaries. It is possible that each one of them has three-eighths of the wealth; because if they were both free,
(1) Recorded by al-Nasa'i, in: The Chapter on the blood money for a mukatab, from the Book of Qasamah. Al-Mujtaba 8/41, with similar wording. It does not appear in the Musnad of Ahmad. See: Irwa' al-Ghalil 6/161, 162. (2) In M: "al-khitab" (address).
"يَرِثُ وَيُورَثُ عَلى قَدْرِ مَا عَتَقَ مِنْهُ" (١). ولأنَّه يجبُ أن يثبُتَ لكلِّ بعضٍ حُكْمُه، كما لو كان الآخرُ مِثْلَه، وقياسًا لأحَدِهما على الآخرِ. إذا ثَبَتَ هذا، فالتَّفْريعُ على قَوْلِنا؛ لأنَّ العملَ على غَيْرِه واضِحٌ. كيفيَّةُ تَوْرِيثه أنْ يُعْطَى مَنْ له فَرْضٌ بقَدْرِ ما فيه من الحُرّيَّةِ مِنْ فَرْضِه، وإِنْ كان عَصَبَةً نُظِرَ ماله مَعَ الحُرّيَّة الكامِلَةِ، فأُعْطِىَ بقدرِ ما فيه منها، وإِنْ كانا عَصَبَتَيْنِ لا يَحْجُبُ أحَدُهما الآخَرَ، كابْنينِ نِصْفُهما حُرٌّ، ففيه وجهان؛ أحدهما، تُكمَّلُ الحُريةُ فيهما، بأنْ تُضَمَّ الحُرِّيَّةُ من أحدِهما إلى ما فى الآخرِ منها، فإن كَمَلَ منهما واحدٌ، ورِثا جميعًا ميراثَ ابنٍ حُرٍّ؛ لأنَّ نِصْفَىْ شىءٍ شيءٌ كاملٌ، ثم يقسَّم ما وَرِثاه بينهما على قَدْرِ ما فى كُلِّ واحدٍ منهما، فإذا كان ثُلُثا أحدِهما حُرًّا، وثُلثُ الآخرِ حُرًّا كان ما وَرِثاه بينهما أثلاثًا، وإِنْ نَقَصَ ما فيهما من الحُرِّيَّة عَنْ حُرٍّ كامِلٍ، وَرِثا بقَدْرِ ما فيهما، وإِنْ زادَ على حُرٍّ واحدٍ، وكان الجُزْءان فيهما سواءً، قُسِم ما يَرِثَانِه بينهما بالسَّوِيَّة، وإنِ اخْتلفا أُعْطِىَ كُلُّ واحدٍ منهما بِقَدْرِ ما فيه. قال الخَبْرِىُّ: قال الأكْثرونَ: هذا قياسُ قولِ عَلىٍّ، رضِىَ اللَّه عنه. والوجْهُ الآخرُ، لا تُكَمَّلُ الحُرّيَّةُ فيهما، لأنَّها لو كُمِّلَتْ لم يَظْهَرْ للرِّقِّ أثرٌ، وكانا فى ميراثِهما كالحُرَّيْنِ، وإن كان أحدُهما يَحجُبُ الآخرَ، فقد قيل فيهما وجهانِ أيضًا. والصّحيحُ أنّ الحُرِّيَّةَ لا تُكَمَّل ههُنا؛ لأنَّ الشىءَ لا يُكمَّلُ بما يُسْقِطُه، ولا يُجْمعُ بينه وبينَ ما يُنافيه. ووَرَّثَه بعضُهم بالخِطابِ، وتنْزِيلِ الأحْوالِ، وحَجَب بعضَهم ببعضٍ على مثالِ تَنْزيلِ الخُناثَى (٢). وقال أبو يوسفَ بمعناه. ومسائلُ ذلك؛ ابنٌ نِصْفُهُ حُرٌّ له نِصْفُ المالِ، فإنْ كان معه ابنٌ آخَرُ نصفُه حُرٌّ فلهما المالُ، فى أحدِ الوَجْهين، وفى الآخرِ، لهما نِصْفُه، والباقى للعَصَبَةِ، أو لبيتِ المالِ إن لم تكُنْ عَصَبَةٌ. ويَحْتَمِلُ أنْ يكونَ لكُلِّ واحدٍ منهما ثلاثَةُ أثْمانِ المالِ؛ لأنَّهما لو كانا حُرّيْنِ،
(١) أخرجه النسائى، فى: باب دية المكاتب، من كتاب القسامة. المجتبى ٨/ ٤١ بنحوه. ولم يرد فى مسند أحمد. انظر: إرواء الغليل ٦/ ١٦١، ١٦٢.(٢) فى م: "الخطاب".
